Do you guys disable automatic de-interlacing as well? What about the check box for pull down detection?

That depends. On one of my TVs that doesn't support 24 fps playback I did have to check pull down detection. You might have to enable de-interlacing as well. What I would do is turn off everything at the beginning, and then enable features as needed.

As for my issues, they seem to be mostly gone. The pixel format has not changed, and while the audio and video does come out of sync for some tv shows occasionally, it seems to correct itself, which I assume means the "sync playback to display" function in Plex is working now. Before it would not correct itself at all and audio and video would become progressively more out of sync.

It's no secret that I disagree with assassin on the AMD driver issue but that's already been discussed ad nauseum... what I want to address here is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by assassin

There simply is no noticeable difference in PQ for Intel vs ATI vs NVidia for 1080p HD Video. For gaming - sure - but the vast minority on AVS game on their HTPC.

Assassin is absolutely correct on this. Allowing for variances in hardware models and their capabilities (ie: not comparing an NVidia 210 to an AMD 6870), there is absolutely no difference in picture quality produced for media playback (gaming is an altogether different issue). Any differences seen are a result of the renderer and/or decoder being used or configuration/equipment as kapone noted.

It's no secret that I disagree with assassin on the AMD driver issue but that's already been discussed ad nauseum... what I want to address here is this:

Assassin is absolutely correct on this. Allowing for variances in hardware models and their capabilities (ie: not comparing an NVidia 210 to an AMD 6870), there is absolutely no difference in picture quality produced for media playback (gaming is an altogether different issue). Any differences seen are a result of the renderer and/or decoder being used or configuration/equipment as kapone noted.

Having said that, the Radeons earn a well-deserved win here. While obscure multi-cadence support might be responsible for the bulk of point advantage, their real strength is superlative noise-reduction options. This comes in real handy with compressed video, so if you plan to play back any files that aren’t optimally encoded at HD resolution, the Radeons have a real advantage. It’s also noteworthy that the sub-$100 Radeon HD 5670 can offer slightly better playback quality than a GeForce GTX 470, even when multi-cadence tests are left out of the mix, and that a ~$120 Radeon 5750 card can boast the same ultimate PC playback quality right alongside more expensive Radeons like the 6850.

And any review that does HQV for Intel GPUs show them even worse than Nvidia. I've used all three, and there is a difference. Not with a 6450... but a Radeon with a little horsepower takes the cake.

Read the paragraph above the one you quoted, especially the last line. Also read the page where they did the noise reduction tests (underlined for emphasis):

Quote:

This test is fairly simple to assess, even if there is an element of subjectivity here. All of the graphics cards we’re testing achieve a perfect score, although we note that the Radeon noise reduction appears superior.

Even though they are the "same"... the Radeons appear superior. And this isn't the first review that makes this same conclusion... that the Radeons have better overall PQ than their competitors.

It's like saying... I don't know why this Kuro plasma looks better than this LG plasma... it just "appears superior."

Can you tell me why review after review after review, show that the Radeons score better "objectively" even in a admitted subjective test like HQV? When you spot a trend like that... do you really think it's all the same?

Is it just coincidence that the Radeon's continually best their competitors?

Read the paragraph above the one you quoted, especially the last line. Also read the page where they did the noise reduction tests (underlined for emphasis):

And this? The paragraph where they say that they think that too much emphasis is placed on "odd" cadences? Don't they realize that those cadences are used regularly throughout the world?

No one is saying that you won't be happy with your Nvidia or Intel GPU... but if you want a better card that will handle anything and everything you can throw at it... a Radeon 5/6750+ is the best you can get in HTPC video quality.

By "appears", it means to their eyes. If the NVidia "appears" better to someone else, it does not mean that it is. NVidia was given a lower score on the noise reduction (something that most people disable anyway) because they didn't see a difference with it on or off. Others do see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puwaha

Can you tell me why review after review after review, show that the Radeons score better "objectively" even in a admitted subjective test like HQV? When you spot a trend like that... do you really think it's all the same?

Skipping the falsidical paradox, what trend? Assassin has repeatedly asked you to point to all these reviews, and yet...

BTW, there are some very techincal reasons why the Kuro looks better and that is not subjective. But that's a discussion for another thread.

By "appears", it means to their eyes. If the NVidia "appears" better to someone else, it does not mean that it is.

So around and around we go. If reviewers consistently say that AMD scores better, then is it "subjective" or "objective"?

I could understand if there weren't a consistent pattern... but when AMD consistently scores higher, then it's no longer subjective.

Quote:

NVidia was given a lower score on the noise reduction (something that most people disable anyway) because they didn't see a difference with it on or off. Others do see the difference.

Why do people turn off a feature that improves picture quality? I'll tell you why... most folks buy low-powered GPUs that can't handle multiple types of enhancement, so the "prevailing wisdom" has been to just turn it off, because everyone watches 1080p material, that is sourced from 1080p cameras with no compression ever... right?

Quote:

Skipping the falsidical paradox, what trend? Assassin has repeatedly asked you to point to all these reviews, and yet...

LOL! This is a fairly long running disagreement that Assassin and I have. Assassin says the lowest common denominator is "good enough," and that no one "needs" anything better. I obviously disagree.

But since you asked... Here's a couple more reviews (in addition to the more recent one that you-yourself posted) that show AMD on top versus Nvidia and/or Intel. I'm not going to dig around for more reviews... I'll ask you to prove them wrong.

I ask that if you or Assassin (or anyone really) dismiss these as "subjective" then I ask you to post one... just one review that shows Nvidia or Intel besting AMD in picture quality using HQV scores.

If you can't... then it's not subjective and it's a proven fact.

Quote:

BTW, there are some very techincal reasons why the Kuro looks better and that is not subjective. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Sure... but to the layperson, they don't know why... it's just better. To the reviewers of videocards... they may or may not know why... but the AMDs come out on top because it's a better quality video device.

The main problem with Assassin's challenge is that he seems to think that for 1080p-only material that Intel or Nvidia is just as good. I'm sure he'll probably relent to the fact that AMD is better for SD and Internet-style video. AMD/ATI has a long history of working with video in the form of tuners and display cards... not just gaming. But what the reviews consistently show is that AMD is better overall, so the giant leap he takes is that this video quality doesn't manifest when comparing 1080p.

He then makes a paradoxical request to "prove" it when there is no way to record what the eye sees as superior. It's the same as when he was arguing against MadVR... yet people would tell him that it was better to their eyes.

Assassin says the lowest common denominator is "good enough," and that no one "needs" anything better. I obviously disagree.

I never said that. Not even close.

And I fully recognize that Madvr has benefit for some --- especially on interlaced content.

Edit: As far as Madvr goes I just thought it interesting that the developer, Madshi, used screenshots to show the marked difference in PQ when using Madvr yet we at AVS were not even able to reproduce this once using screenshots.

In our first look at Sandy Bridge I listed the lack of CPUs better suited to HTPC use as a “Con”. Following our evaluation of the Core i3-2100T and DH67CF complete it should be clear that Intel has taken that concern off the table in a big way. With a 35W TDP that translates into a full featured home theater PC capable of timely commercial scanning, transcoding and 3D Blu-ray play that only draws between 14 and 43 watts, this system provides a fantastic option for anyone looking to build the ultimate mini-HTPC.

Just did a quick google search. Lots of HTPC sites with lots of people just like you and me saying that there was little to no difference for HTPC PQ between the three. Pretty much goes along with my experience.

When evaluating HQV-HD scores it is important to remember that while numbers are produced, the outcome is still somewhat subjective and open to interpretation so results should only be evaluated within the context that created them and are not directly comparable between displays or reviewers.

So... you couldn't find a review where Nvidia or Intel beat AMD/ATI... right?

Quote:

do a google search for ATI vs NVidia (vs Intel) comparison for 1080p with real world users and you will see that in the real world many people just can't tell a difference.

Really? Seems more like you are the one in those threads trying to convince people that IGP is "good enough".

The *professional* reviews seem to disagree.

It's funny... I heard the same arguments for years of "you just can't tell a difference" when people asked is 720p "good enough"... or should I buy 1080p? Some people would say... "Your eye can't resolve resolutions past a certain distance..." and other utter BS. Yet, people could see the difference.

Honestly Assassin... the HQV disc is $25. Since you always have different model GPUs to compare with your assorted builds, you should do an honest assessment... notice I said honest.

So you think I am not honest?

Sometimes this place is unbelievable. I, and others, have given you an opinion. Just because you don't agree or like it doesn't mean its not honest. I have told you repeatedly I have compared all three. And HONESTLY there was little to no difference.

I want you to honestly evaluate the features of your favorite video cards with HQV personally. I want you to be honest about it because you have a vested interest in promoting your HTPCs which are largely built on Intel IGP. While Intel might be "good enough"... it's certainly not the best.

Let's put it this way... some people can't see the benefits of using MadVR, others can. Some can't see the benefits of mild frame-interpolation, others can. Some people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p, others can. And on and on.

A moderately powerful AMD discrete GPU will get you the best of everything that modern GPUS can offer, and get you the best measured PQ.

In my opinion, offering "good enough" suggestions for video cards is doing a disservice to the HTPC community. Unless someone is on a very strict budget, IGP should be avoided.

In my opinion, offering "good enough" suggestions for video cards is doing a disservice to the HTPC community. Unless someone is on a very strict budget, IGP should be avoided.

My friend, with all due respect... It's HIS business. He can promote whatever he wants. It's up to the buyer/user to decide if that's actually "good enough" and whether they should believe this dude or not.

I want you to honestly evaluate the features of your favorite video cards with HQV personally. I want you to be honest about it because you have a vested interest in promoting your HTPCs which are largely built on Intel IGP. While Intel might be "good enough"... it's certainly not the best.

Let's put it this way... some people can't see the benefits of using MadVR, others can. Some can't see the benefits of mild frame-interpolation, others can. Some people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p, others can. And on and on.

A moderately powerful AMD discrete GPU will get you the best of everything that modern GPUS can offer, and get you the best measured PQ.

In my opinion, offering "good enough" suggestions for video cards is doing a disservice to the HTPC community. Unless someone is on a very strict budget, IGP should be avoided.

Once again horribly inaccurate statements and accusations.

First let's talk about history. In December 2010 I started my sticky thread. This was at the time of Zacate and Clarkdale and Sandybridge was just coming out. I personally had a Core2Duo with ATI discrete card. The Intel offerings were by far the best bang for the buck at that time. I made the guide a full 6 months BEFORE ever thinking about starting a low cost store to offer HTPCs to people that were preconfigured. In that time I continued to build HTPCs including ATI/AMD, Zacate, etc. From December 2010 until now I have always had the same opinion ---- ATI, NVidia and Intel iGPU all roughly have the same PQ in regards to 1080p playback. Period. Point blank. Simple.

This has been referenced here in this thread, on other threads on AVS and other HTPC sites across the web. So I am not alone in this opinion. There simply is no difference for the average HTPC user.

Furthermore it will be very interesting once I crunch the numbers on the AVS census to see how many people are using the Intel iGPU for their HTPC. Do you see an outcry on AVS and other sites about how horrible their experience is? No. Quite the contrary --- most people are extremely pleased with the PQ and playback. If it were true that the Intel iGPU was merely just "good enough" then you would see daily/weekly posts about how horrible the Intel experience is. Instead these are missing.

A "vested interest"? I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. Just because the webstore offers Intel based machines (we make custom machines as well, btw) doesn't mean I have a vested interest in Intel over ATI. I have a vested interest in providing the best HTPC for the money to customers. I could care less if its AMD, Intel, NVidia, Pre-built refurbed Dells, etc. I just don't care. I like quality. I like simplicity. I like stable. I like what works. Which brings me to my next point...

I have been somewhat polite in not stating the obvious because I was trying to leave it out of the argument while focusing mainly on PQ but let's be honest (to use your phrase)... the ATI drivers suck for most people. There are daily posts on AVS regarding ATI driver and comments (some insulting) that AVS users do not know how to upgrade and update their ATI drivers. Does this sound like a product that I want to provide to customers AND then offer customer support on ATI drivers? Forget it. If a product requires a driver sweeper to be used every time then its a bad product. I have never had to do this before and I have personally spent more time troubleshooting ATI driver issues than I have spent on almost everything else collectively.

So even if NVidia, Intel and ATI are roughly the same many some aren't choosing ATI because of these issues. Don't like it? Fix it. The others just don't seem to have this problem.

In the end I will offer and recommend whatever I think is the best. Llano is aging with Trinity coming out. The SNB is upgradeable to IVB. AMD is probably getting out of the dektop market in some form or fashion.

Why don't YOU do a comparison of all the different offerings. As I have said I have already done this and done a blind A/B comparison with my home theater for typical 1080p. No difference for 1080p.

My friend, with all due respect... It's HIS business. He can promote whatever he wants. It's up to the buyer/user to decide if that's actually "good enough" and whether they should believe this dude or not.

Do you see an outcry on AVS and other sites about how horrible their experience is? No. Quite the contrary --- most people are extremely pleased with the PQ and playback. If it were true that the Intel iGPU was merely just "good enough" then you would see daily/weekly posts about how horrible the Intel experience is. Instead these are missing.

I regularly see posts about how HTPC video compares to CE devices. I know you have to. Why not nip those in the bud and suggest the best PQ video cards?

Quote:

I have been somewhat polite in not stating the obvious because I was trying to leave it out of the argument while focusing mainly on PQ but let's be honest (to use your phrase)... the ATI drivers suck for most people. There are daily posts on AVS regarding ATI driver and comments (some insulting) that AVS users do not know how to upgrade and update their ATI drivers. Does this sound like a product that I want to provide to customers AND then offer customer support on ATI drivers?

ATI drivers are no worse than the multitude of problems that other vendors have. I have had 5 generations of ATI/AMD cards (going all the way back to the Radeon 8500LE) and never once gotten any of the problems that people post on. I don't doubt that there are problems, with the nearly infinite combinations of hardware out there, there is bound to be some bad configurations.

I've had 3 generations of Nvidia, and a couple of Intel ones (shoot, even a VooDoo card back in the day), also by the way. In my experience, problems have all been related to hardware deficiencies rather than driver problems.

People have high expectations dashed precisely because people keep suggesting low-power GPUs.

Quote:

Forget it. If a product requires a driver sweeper to be used every time then its a bad product. I have never had to do this before and I have personally spent more time troubleshooting ATI driver issues than I have spent on almost everything else collectively.

Quite the exageration.

Quote:

Why don't YOU do a comparison of all the different offerings. As I have said I have already done this and done a blind A/B comparison with my home theater for typical 1080p. No difference for 1080p.

My findings wouldn't be any different than the professional reviews. You are the one that needs convincing. You are the one that repeatedly calls for "proof." You seem to trust your eyes... put them to the test in a structured and objective tcomparison. HQV is the best we have to compare something that is obviously so polarizing and "subjective."

I take the opinion of dozens of HTPC users over 1-3 reviews where they go out of their way to point out how subjective their analysis is. And even with all that being said they aren't exactly "nail in the coffin" type reviews.

I take the opinion of dozens of HTPC users over 1-3 reviews where they go out of their way to point out how subjective their analysis is. And even with all that being said they aren't exactly "nail in the coffin" type reviews.

How about subjective proof since you don't believe that the consistent trend of "subjective" HQV scores from professional reviewers... are actually objective?

Just on the first couple of pages tonight... here are problems with Intel and Nvidia: